When I first saw ads for Johnny Depp’s Public Enemies, I was intrigued. The last time I’d seen a good gangster movie was back around The Untouchables. Bringing the notoriously suicidal Melvin Purvis into things was an interesting stroke, and as we’re all well aware, Johnny Depp is a fine actor who brings class and a compelling performance to whatever he touches.
So why, when I actually saw Public Enemies, was I so spectacularly bored by it?
First, the plot–Johnny Depp plays John Dillenger, one of the most successful and most famous bank robbers of the early twentieth century. During the height of the Great Depression, Dillenger and his cohorts tackled hundreds of banks. Of course, when Dillenger wasn’t robbing banks, he was off eating dinner with friends and enjoying his passions in life: baseball, movies, fast cars, good clothes, and recent addition Billie Forchette, a coat check girl from Indiana who’s part Indian.
As the movie continues, Dillenger and Forchette will grow closer together, the world will steadily change around them, and bank robbers will actually become a liability to the mob as new laws threaten their operations in turn. So what will happen, in the end? Well, you all know exactly what will happen because John Dillenger didn’t live to a ripe old age with his girlfriend in tow in real life. No sir or ma’am as the case may be–he died, shot to death by police. And no, that’s not a spoiler, because it actually happened. If you didn’t already know it going in you can’t accuse people of spoilering for interjecting discussion about real life.
Anyway, the biggest problem with Public Enemies can be summed up by the use of one common gaming term:
LESS QQ, MOAR PEW PEW!
This is the perfect explanation of both what’s wrong with Public Enemies and also how to fix it. For those of you not already familiar with the term, some explanation is in order. QQ is, essentially, a reference to crying eyes. Also used to describe things like relationship drama and other similar phenomenon, it’s a derogatory term. Its converse is “pew pew”, or the sound sci-fi laser weapons make when fired. It’s essentially an exhortation to action via shaming the target into stopping behavior that’s seen as overemotional and getting their head back in the game.
The biggest problem with Public Enemies is that it focuses so much on the relationship between Dillenger and Forchette that it seems to forget that it’s supposed to be a movie about bank robbers. Occasionally, Public Enemies will remember its roots, and in these moments makes a downright entertaining movie. But meanwhile, the movie is so wildly overcommitted to exploring this relationship between two characters that it A. has several other characters available for use and B. was supposed to be an action crime drama, not a romantic drama with occasional bank robbery.
The movie is CALLED Public Enemies, not Two Schmucks Who Fall In Love.
Even worse is that this nightmare of a movie has a run time well in excess of two hours, meaning that the sheer amount of time they’ll spend on the romance aspects will weigh on what little action there is like an anchor around the movie’s neck.
Essentially, this movie is profoundly boring. Stay away from it unless you’re desperate for a good romantic drama.
Popularity: 1% [?]
CalGal said
July 6 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Sounds like my kind of film-thanks for the info….
Public Enemies Movie Review–So. Very. BORING. | Streaming Full Length Feature Films said
July 6 2009 @ 4:56 pm
[...] the original post: Public Enemies Movie Review–So. Very. BORING. Share and [...]
Disagree said
July 6 2009 @ 5:15 pm
I liked it – great acting, story & music. Everybody else in the theater I attended seemed to like it, too. Maybe you should give it another try. BTW, the man’s name is spelled “Dillinger” not “Dillenger.”
Irene said
July 6 2009 @ 9:18 pm
I very much enjoyed Public Enemies. I thought it was great considering I know quite a bit about John Dillinger. He was very much in love with Billie “Frechette” (which by the way you spelled her name wrong as well as Dillinger’s) and he made sure that was known. Yes Mann could have focused on all the other things Dillinger enjoyed but he chose not to and I think, as well as many others, it was a good move. The movie was also named Public Enemies because it was based on the book called, yes you guessed it, Public Enemies. Not everyone shares the same way of thinking that you do as far as movies go, if that was the case then all movie titles would be so incredibly boring and obvious. I highly recommend this movie and will personally be buying it as soon as it’s on DVD.
matt c said
July 9 2009 @ 8:46 am
I enjoy well thought out films, not action drivel and soulless churned out hollywood crap, and this film bored me to tears. The characters were 2d and hollow, it was hard to care what happened to any of them. The gunfights, normally an adrenaline moment in a film, were dull and repetative. The bank jobs could have been the same scene played over and over again. I almost walked out.
Al said
July 10 2009 @ 2:02 am
Me and my wife did walk out. Boring, boring boring. When they robbed banks and had shootouts, I yawned through those. I actually said “who gives a shit” about 30 times during the love story. It shows that Movies like “Heat” or “Training Day” are the real movies for action. Not this boring dribble. BTW the last movie I walked out on was “Look Who’s Talking 3″…If that doesnt show my dedication to a flick I dont know what does. Save your money and fall asleep on your couch if you want to watch this.
Jennifer said
July 11 2009 @ 12:16 am
For a film in the midst of the Great Depression, everything sure was shiny.
And had I not been with a friend, I also would’ve walked out. Every time I thought the movie was over, we would get a new scene, and I’d almost rip out my hair.
loved it said
July 11 2009 @ 8:32 pm
I loved it & I think its fine that u all walked out or almost walked out, as long as the ticket was still paid lol
What was it? 3rd in the box office…I think so. All of the “important” or “big time” movie reviewers also spoke highly of this movie.
james said
July 12 2009 @ 12:23 am
this movie could have had more bank robbery scenes. other than that, i had no problem with it. i liked how depp played dillinger. its not the greatest thriller, but its definitely not as bad as your poorly written up article.